Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mjkboston (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 29 July 2014 (→Help with what you mean by "reliable sources"?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Onel5969's Talk
Phoenix ... It's a dry heat ...
Born
New York city
NationalityAmerican


Edit count

Archived Material

Hi. From time to time I move pertinent info to an archive page, which can be found here: User:Onel5969/Talk from December 2013 - present month (Edited to remove insignificant sections) First manual archive

Hi! You might find these handy:

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whispering Smith Hits London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank Spencer and Richard Carlson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE May drive

The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star
For exceptional copyediting efforts during the Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 drive, copyediting articles with a combined total of 140,111 words, Onel5969 is presented with this exclusive, brilliant, Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star. Thanks so much for your help! All the best, Miniapolis 22:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
Congratulations on your first-place finish in the Guild of Copy Editors oldest-articles category (21), and thanks for your hard work! All the best, Miniapolis 23:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaderboard Award: Total Articles—3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Onel5969 for copyediting 55 articles during the GOCE May 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Leaderboard Award: Total Words—2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Onel5969 for copyediting 75,495 words during the GOCE May 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Leaderboard Award: 5K+ Articles—3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Onel5969 for copyediting three 5K-plus-word articles during the GOCE May 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Leaderboard Award: Longest Article—3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Onel5969 for copyediting an 11,312-word article during the GOCE May 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE June 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richard Wray's biography

Hello. Thank you for the prompt feedback on the article. Much appreciated. We've been having a lot of trouble meeting the guidelines for sources lately. The thing about it is, as renowned as Richard Wray was, he was still essentially a LOCAL figure of Houston art. Houston isn't a New York Times sort of location; when it comes to art, they have the Houston Press, the Houston Chronicle, and a handful of art institutions. Not only are the the 12 listed references the best ones available, but they're the ONLY ones available. We've spent hours scouring the web for other sources, but these are the only ones around. This is what we have to work with, and I feel that, for a local figure, these are reliable sources. This Wikipedia article lends itself to the people of Houston; we're not trying to make Mr. Wray a worldwide celebrity. Having said that, those from Houston who wish to read the article to learn more about Mr. Wray will find most of these references noteworthy, as they are essential to localized coverage. In all practicality, there is not much else to be done. What do you suggest? PS: There are only two sources from his website: a resume and biography, the latter of which having not even been written by him. The one from cnx.org is actually an interview conducted by Sarah Reynolds, who wrote the book "Houston Reflections: Art in the City." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, that's a hard one. Sometimes, when someone is a local "star", that still doesn't qualify them for notability per wp standards. I will say this, of the 8 or so articles I looked at today which didn't meet the notability requirements, this article was the closest. I think if you could come up with one or two sources, perhaps from the art sections of the newspapers in the other cities he gave shows, that would help. Or a reference or two regarding him in a national paper. The notability guidelines for creative folk are:
1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
His Texas artist of the year might help. The link in the article isn't about the year he won, he only appears on the list at the end. On the whole, I don't think you're far away. Perhaps there are non-online sources you could reference? Books on art? Art of the southwest? etc.... If you can slightly improve the links, resubmit and leave me a message, and I'll look at it again. Onel5969 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richard Wray's biography

Hello. Thanks for pushing us to find more sources. We actually managed to find some of the noteworthy sources you're interested in. Please see reference numbers 4, 11, and 15. The 4th one is an extensive list of Wray's work on the official website for the National Gallery of Art. That's a .gov site, so it's definitely credible. The 11th one is an actual book written by Jim and Wade Wilson; this is a formidable citation of Wray's Texas Artist of the Year award. The 15th one is from an actual printed magazine (the Texas Monthly) from 1977 that covered Wray's exhibit at a museum (here's the page: http://books.google.com/books?id=KioEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=dick+wray+texas+monthly&source=bl&ots=9BAWgNzjN2&sig=rLiLCLLFBfa2grIPB3mOH2-9K3k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aduQU-uVHIa0yAS1_4KgDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dick%20wray%20texas%20monthly&f=false). I used a quote from that article that was more negative toward Wray's work and placed it in the critical reception section; this should increase the objectiveness of the critical reception section.

This is the best we could find. We appreciate your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, those should do it. Resubmit it, and I'll approve it.Onel5969 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richard Wray's biography

It has been resubmitted. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Nice job! Onel5969 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello!

You recently declined my article for submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jhiatus3/sandbox Jhiatus3 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Can you help me improve it with more specifics? I've submitted this twice and it seems to meet at least two of the criteria for notability for bands. I just want to learn how I can make this article better so it can be accepted. But I'm so confused on what more I can do that I have not already done, having followed the guidelines carefully. I must be missing something that I'm not privy to. Any help would be greatly appreciated![reply]

Thank you Jhiatus3 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC) jhiatus3[reply]

Hi @Jhiatus3: You have quite a few citations on the page, but none are from really notable sources. The closest you come to that is the Phoenix New Times, which at best is a fringe source. Believe me, I wanted to accept the article, living in the valley myself, but couldn't. I went through each of the 12 guidelines, which you can find HERE, and did not see them fulfilling any of them. Which two do you think they satisfy? I will say that it was close. If you could come up with another independent, reliable source, that would push them over the top (you're not holding back a Rolling Stone article are you?).
On another note, if we can get them past the notability issue, the article still needs a very thorough copy editing. The structure seems fine. I hope this helps, and I'll help you as much as I am able to get you through this process. Onel5969 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thanks for the advice and your willingness to help me get this article into shape! I have no doubt that eventually it will become passable. I'll gather together more press and run it passed you when I do before I resubmit. I'll also run past those two criteria of notability I feel the group meets once I can gather a bit more supporting material. I should be in contact in the next two weeks to follow with you. Thanks again! Jhiatus3 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast versus Main cast

Hi Onel5969! I noticed that you reverted my change of "Cast" to "Main cast" in Sea Devils with reference to WP:FILMCAST. However, there is nothing there that says that the chapter heading must be "Cast" and nothing else. My purpose on changing "Cast" to "Main cast" (which I do regularly) is to show that the cast consists of more actors and characters than those listed. This is especially true for older films, where only the main actors tended to get a credit - and for many newer films the Wikipedia cast list always only shows the main cast (otherwise it would be a mile long). So, any reason why "Main cast" shouldn't be used? Cheers! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas! And thank you for the edit on this piece (I'm currently working on an overhaul of EVERY RKO film, so appreciate any help). While their is nothing that says that the section "must" be called "Cast", it clearly says that the section should be called by that name. Having said that, I understand your point (my wife was an actress who had several minor roles and would never qualify to be included in the Cast list here on wp). However, in my meager attempt to try and make wp more encyclopedic, when we can be more standardized (without sacrificing creativity), I think we should be. Two of those areas are structure and titling. For example, wp has decided that section titles should follow sentence capitalization, and so we do. On the city project, we decided there should be a certain order to the sections (even though I disagree with the order), in the US I went through the top 100 cities and put them all in the same order. I won't revert your change, but hope you see the value of making them all the same. And since the vast majority of film sections are called "Cast", I would stick with that. Onel5969 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy

  1. Please see Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy.
  2. I had no strong objections to your helpful specific suggestions, so I just went ahead and voluntarily implemented all of them directly into the article.
  3. Hopefully this is now to your satisfaction, and the NPOV tag can be removed at this point in time.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for the kind and professional demeanor in which you conduct yourself during copy editing and talk page discussion, especially most recently at Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy. — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Girl of the Port (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Russell
Side Street (1929 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Russell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Wiki as reference for UTEP for El Paso, Texas page

Thanks it has been corrected. However I noticed your attempt at removal of this one item removed multiple valid entries. I hope there is a more efficient way, seems like using a shotgun to kill a fly inside a house - it works but there is a lot of damage to what should be kept.

Thanks again I'm learning the rules as I go.

BanditRider22 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BanditRider22 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fractured Atlas draft

Hi,

Thanks for reviewing the draft page on Fractured Atlas. I've made the changes to the citation format you requested (hopefully I got it right!) I'm not sure what to do about the Wall Street Journal articles, since they're obviously reputable, but I agree it's a concern that they're behind a paywall. (You can trick the WSJ website into thinking you've arrived through a Google search, in which case they show the whole article, but that's ethically questionable.) Also, the one unconfirmed citation that points to the Fractured Atlas blog is tricky since there wasn't any independent press on this event. That's why I phrased the claim as being about Fractured Atlas's announcement (i.e. the blog post itself) rather than anything more substantive. I hope that works.

Thanks, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthehutt (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamthehutt: Hi. Approved the article. Also provided the correct format for the first citation. You can look at that and see the difference between how you have them formatted, and the way I do it. There are other ways to do it as well, but this seems to be the most accepted. One thing you left out is the date you accessed the references. That's important, in case of "link rot" (when a link goes bad). Another thing I do, but most editors don't, because it is time consuming, is to provide an archive link to the web source, that way it never goes away. But as I said, that's just me. Nice article. Don't worry about the one link to the blog, citations are only if there is information that may be contested, and doubtful anyone would contest that. The WSJ article isn't a big issue either, since you cite the date and author of the article, someone can go and look it up ... no different than if you were citing a book. Onel5969 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel

Thanks for each correction that you did. I read all the corrections and is OK. But, as you said "Sin Razones" wants to say in Spanish "Sin Razones" ("Without Reasons"), expresa que no existen razones para poner a prueba su amor". And you wrote something different. Thank you very much for all, greetings from Colombia.

— Luis Nuñez (talk) 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kieran O'Reilly Page

Hello,

Thank you so much for reviewing my new article on Kieran_O’Reilly_(Performer). I would like to ask you a few questions, if you don't mind:

  • The page was given a "Start" class rating. Would you be able to give me some tips on how I could improve it? I've de-orphaned it. I can add more categories to it but is there anything else I can do to improve the rating?
  • When someone types Kieran O'Reilly into Wikipedia's search bar, another Kieran O'Reilly (a bishop) pops up. I guess I need to create a disambiguation page but the article on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages is a little heavy and lengthy. Could you point me the appropriate section of this page (or another page?) to help me do what's right in this situation?

Many thanks for this and sorry to bother you.

Supadog (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supadog: First of all, you're not bothering me. Questions are always welcome. I saw you de-orphaned it, so that's good. I'm the one who graded it start class, and it's currently borderline C class, and a different editor might see it that way. I tend to be conservative when dealing with another group's subject matter (in this case, it would fall into the music projects I put on the talk page). Hopefully in the next couple of weeks, someone from one of those groups will take a look at it and review my classification. If you click on the links on the talk page for "quality scale", it will show you what people look for when classifying articles.
Don't get uptight over its classification, it is what it is sometimes. Based on the amount of information available, this article is in about as good shape as it can be. Over the next couple of days, I'll do a copy edit on it, to tighten it and bring it into wp guidelines (for example, 'Absence' should really be Absence). As more information, citable, becomes available, add it. That's the best way to improve the article. Another way is to add images to the article. But they have to be free to use (like your own photo of Kieran).
Look at other articles about musicians, especially those which are not as well known, look at what they are rated, and they can give you ideas. And regarding the Disambiguation issue, to be honest, I haven't done one myself yet, but let me take a look and see if I can figure it out. Onel5969 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips and for creating the disambiguation page. Much appreciated. Supadog (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E.C. "Teddy Blue" Abbott

Hello One15969: You twice reverted inclusion of E.C. "Teddy Blue" Abbott from Lincoln, Nebraska#Notable people. Your rationale: he's insufficiently notable because he lacks his own Wikipedia article. I beg to differ, on several bases:

  1. He's a member of the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame (District 6), he wrote a book that's been reprinted multiple times and illustrated, and he's been written about quite a bit as well as featured onscreen (e.g., in Buffalo Girls (1995 film), and
  2. Multiple lists of "notable people" in Wikipedia include people who don't have entire Wikipedia articles written about them.

Would you please point out the exact paragraph in Wikipedia's guidelines that documents the requirment that someone have an article written about them in order to be included on a "List of notable people" list?

Thanks, Froid (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Froid: Hi. I listed the rationale on the article's talk page. It's not that he doesn't have his own article (although that's a quick and easy way to affirm notability - but I couldn't write all that in the edit summary), but that he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:PEOPLE. Which is the standard for inclusion on a notable people list for a city. I did a quick search and found no information regarding him. However, I must have mistyped his name. A further search shows that he has been written about (even has a PBS article) extensively, and I have since revised my view that he is not notable. Please disregard the post I made on the talk page... in fact, I will add a comment there as well. Onel5969 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Finn Partners Help

New to Wikipedia, need help understanding requested changes. In May editor suggested citations were not reliable sources and that there were too many of them. I edited draft, removing some sources and ensured remaining cited sources were industry publications. New feedback says to include more sources. Can I confirm my sources are acceptable before adding more? Remf29 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Remf29: Hi. Thanks for taking the time to try to learn. The citations you use are fine to provide support to the content in the article, but unfortunately they do not do anything to prove the notability of the article's subject. Not every successful business or person is notable, per wiki standards. There would have to be significant coverage in non-trade papers, by independent persons. In other words, has this firm every had an article done by the WS Journal? Newsday? Any major publication? There's nothing wrong with the article, it's structure and writing are fine, it's just simply that this company might not be notable enough. I've been there, had an article I wrote been declined... I've also had an article that I wrote and was published been the subject of a request for deletion, for lack of notability. However, in that last instance, the subject of the article barely squeaked by. Bottom line is, if you can't find some mainstream publication articles on this company, you might be better served by choosing a different subject to write about. I hope this helps, and don't let it get you down, keep editing! Onel5969 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Onel5969 - this is very helpful. Will work on notability and continue editing. I feel like it is a company that deserves to be in wikipedia, but the very nature of its business means that most mainstream publications aren't going to write about it. I've seen other public relations companies in wikipedia; perhaps what I need to do is put in more description about its clients and work. Do you think that would help? Again, any advice is appreciated. Thank you for your time. Remf29 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer.com Submission

Hi there,

I see that you reviewed the entry for Lawyer.com and was denied. I was wondering what suggestions you had for me to improve it. I see that you mentioned references need to be improved, and I did list Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Forbes.

Can you please make some more suggestions for me in order to get the listing approved? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmaher: Hi. And those three would be good citations, and with them would probably qualify the article as notable, unfortunately all 3 of them are not about lawyer.com, but mail.com. If you could come up with similar citations for lawyer.com, that would help to prove the notability. Onel5969 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to go ahead and continue working on the page, including some new citations. I'm excited at the prospect of helping out Wiki users learn more about Lawyer.com, as I've noticed a few different pages on the site mention us. Would it be helpful to link to these pages as well? Any other feedback you have would be much appreciated; I plan on adding a "History" and "Features" section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiana of Capua and Adelaide of Riedenburg

Please vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiana of Capua and Adelaide of Riedenburg.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passport

Hi,

in this edit, your comment and the result of the edit seem to contradict each other...

Richard 08:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardw: You're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I did that. Thankfully, it's been corrected. Onel5969 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know it, I won't even begin to guess ;) Richard 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation to Onel5969

Thank you for your specific and detailed response. Also thank you for explaining how to communicate with you. I fear, though, that that method is not self-evident.

I will now stop the exercise of creating this Wikipedia entry. You have convinced me that, by Wikipedia rules, Thos. Kent Miller is not notable and cannot be made to appear notable. However, I disagree for this reason: Miller is notable because he is the first and only author to bring back Rider Haggard's important character Allan Quatermain (in two novels: 2005, 2013) in a literary fashion (as opposed to through the medium of comic novels). That makes him most notable in my book.

Please remove my entry whenever convenient for you.

Best, doyleelmocollins Doyleelmocollins (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for refused article

Hello. May I learn why my article is refused? So I can fix the problems before I re submit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucelik83: I'd need to know what article you're talking about. Onel5969 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OneI5969, when someone neglects to say, you can generally find it in their user contributions. saves a step. Every back and forth exchange increases the odds the person will never return. The article is Draft:The Blue Man (Film 2014). Myself, I think it would do well to have a US review, not just a listing at a festival where is was essentially only an honoorable mention. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Man related article

Hello, Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

But it was already in my references. It is listed number 1 in references list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucelik83: That's still not the name of the article.Onel5969 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article.

The name of the article is "Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves" which explains about The Blue Man mass grave. If you want I can change the sentence on my draft. Instead of "based on the article", I can use "related to the article". How is that sound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucelik83: No. The name of the article is The Blue Man (Film 2014). And I had to spend over half an hour finding it. That's the first problem, you're unsure what the name of your own article is. Second problem is, that when it was declined, it listed the reason. The film is not notable per WP:NOTFILM. There is not a SINGLE citation which speaks to the film's notability. The best citation, from the New York Times, does not even mention the film. No offense, but I won't be answering any more of your questions. Onel5969 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lovin' the Ladies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Marsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


WP:PROF

I accepted Werner Gruner under provision 6 of WP:PROF; all that needs to be shown for notability is reliable evidence of that position, ehich is mentioned in the first paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FP's FA nom

Hey! I was wondering if you and Erik would be willing to cast a vote on the nomination, since you both left a lot of comments. It's pretty much stalled at this point.

Also, since that will probably bring Erik here, are you guys still wanting to make a discussion involving MOS:ELLIPSIS? Corvoe (speak to me) 18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: I'll definitely stop by there and vote for it. Will do that later, since I will want to leave some details. Regarding the ellipsis thing... I completely see Erik's point. That would be a discussion on the MOS page, however, and at some point I'll bring it up on the talk page there. Onel5969 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And that was actually what I meant, opening the discussion over there. And one more time, just for the sake of it, thank you for all your help. If you ever need help with an article you're working on, I gotcha. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Paul Hayes Tucker Submission Declined

In the rejection of Paul Hayes Tucker submission you listed one of the reasons being he did not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. However, as an academic with published works listed as well as a large exhibition record, I am unsure of how to remedy this. As far as additional citations listing him, will providing additional source material addressing him satisfy the requirement?

Eidsey (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Eidsey[reply]

@Eidsey: Hi. Although he is a professor, his notability would stem from his curation activities, so WP:PROF would not apply (although he would not qualify under that, either), he'd fall under the broader WP:BIO criteria. The key criteria for Tucker would be: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Citation 1 merely mentions him in passing (although it is a very good citation to back up the fact in that sentence); As I said in my brief note, vimeo is not a reliable source, ever. The rest of the citations are from regional sources for the most part, and seem to be of the same type of citation as #1. Several are by the source himself, and therefore neither independent, nor reliable, same with alumni/corporate bios (which would include bios done for art showings). The best reference you have is the NYT Brenson article. That's really good, if you came up with more like that from other sources, it would show his notability. If he is world renowned, you would think he'd have stuff in papers from Washington DC, LA, Chicago, London, etc. The best thing would be if you could replace the faculty bio cite (7) with citations from reliable, independent sources.
You also state opinions as fact throughout the article, in other words, you say things without backing them up with citations, even if they are about someone else in the article, such as "... Robert L. Herbert, a pioneer in developing ...", "...Carlton J. H. Hayes, a distinguished history professor ...", "It was there where he first received the inspiration ..."
In addition, the formatting of the article is pretty screwed up. The pictures are not showing, the section headers aren't properly done, you can find out more about how to correct those issues at MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LAYOUT.
Finally, the article also has a slight NPOV issue. Avoid using phrases like, "the world’s foremost authority", "has the unique distinction", "Devoted husband..." and "Inviting to a wide cross-section of audiences". Temper those types of statements simply by saying "one of the world's...", "has the distinction...", "Married to...", and simply dropping that lead in sentence, which is an opinion, not a fact. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Laporte Wikipedia

Hi Onel5969, Thanks for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article you edited. Can you help me edit it in a way that would make it more "credible" for Wikipedia. In you comments you stated that it reads like a local CPA firm. I edited this article to be similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGladrey which is of similar size and notability to LaPorte. What is it about McGladrey that made it work for Wikipedia and how can I edit Laporte so that it is worthy to live in the Wikipedia space?

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-edit-king (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-edit-king: Sure thing. And it's great that you have an example to follow (that's how I started to create articles as well). First, lose the section on the directors. That's a glamor thing for them, and completely irrelevant to the article itself, unless the directors are folks like Al Gore, Dick Cheney, etc... (very notable). Most of the milestones are not relevant: 1946, 1973, 2003, 2004 (the first one), the first 2007, 2010 and the first 2011 are the only ones which belong on the list. The recognition and legal structure sections are fine. Delete the services provided, that clearly reads like an advert for the agency, as do the staff and international capabilities section (the former reads like a promo to hiring, the latter, again like an advert)
Overall, the format needs work. the heading "LaPorte", needs to be deleted, the paragraph is a nice lead section, although it needs to have things like "advanced degrees" and other information which seems to promote the agency, rather than simply inform the reader. Use the McGladrey article as a reference, they are a far larger (6500 vs 160 employees, 75 cities vs 4) firm, and that article does not toot their horn anywhere near this article. You can read MOS:LAYOUT to show you the proper layout for an article.
The other issue with the article, is one of notability. The references cited, while providing the basis for the facts in the article, don't really show the firm's notability. Not a single citation seems to show how this firm satisfies WP:ORGSIG. Just because a firm exists, and is a nice place to work, does not make it rise to the level of notability. Not a single citation from an independent reliable source discusses the firm and how they have had a demonstrable effect on society. McGladrey, as an example, is borderline in this area as well, but the BusinessWeek citation and their Team McGladrey push them over the edge. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Versus You

Hi, I have the inline citations attached and for the Wikipedia: notability (music) criteria, Versus You hit 5 of them: 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. See the references list of the article, rtl.lu and eldoradio.lu etc. 2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The singles "The Hotel Room" and "Be Better Than Me" were in the luxembourg national charts, look also at the references. 5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Bomber Music, Long Beach Records, Fond of Life records and Flix Records are noteable Indie-labels with a huge amount of artists, here are links to the label websites where you can check this: 1.bombermusic artists 2.longbeachrecords artists 3.fondoflife, just click on the Bands button 4.flix-records bands. 7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Versus You is definitely one of the most popular luxembourgish bands and for sure the most significant Punk band from Luxembourg. What the references also tell. And last but not least 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Versus You were already a few times in the heavy rotation of the national charts. I hope that the issues that my article has had, can be fixed with this arguments.

Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Irukandji85: Hi! Well, they only have to meet one of the criteria. Not sure they meet #1, other than the rtl and eldo sources, the rest do not rise them to the level of notability (facebook should NEVER be used as a reference, same for youtube, vimeo, imdb... any sight which has no editorial oversight). rtl and eldo are fringe sources, at best. However, their chart appearance would definitely qualify them under #2. They would also seem to qualify under #5. While they may meet #7 and #11, the inline citations don't indicate it. I'm going to approve it, solely on the basis of #5, since that is clearly cited and stated in the article. However, their chart performance has no inline citation, you should fix that. Thanks for your efforts on this article. Onel5969 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Jane Buchan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jane_Buchan

Thank you for commenting on the draft for this entry. I was suggested to reference more journals by the previous editor, and did so in this update. You stated that "Interviews and press releases are neither independent nor reliable sources. The citations listed do not rise to the level of notability," and understand what you mean. Should I only reference the journals? What would be your next move if you wanted to get this post? Should I shorten the article to the bare bone basics on this one? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sososorry (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sososorry: Hi! You can use interviews definitely to support facts in the article, and to a certain extent, press releases as well, but neither can be used regarding NOTABILITY. There are some things which can rarely, if ever, be used as a citation (e.g. youtube, vimeo, imdb, facebook, most blogs), in general, if a reference site is has not editorial control over it, it is unreliable. It also helps if the citations are in the proper format (see WP:CIT). I edited one of the section headings to also give you the proper format for those as well.
Any fact you have in the article (like her husband winning the hammer throw) should have a citation, and they should be as independent and reliable as possible. Include in the article only those things which are citable, or won't be contested. What I mean by this, is her marriage most likely won't be contested, so you do not need a cite for that, but his winning the medal does need a citation. Send me a message and I'll take a look at it when you resubmit it, and help you get it to the point where it will be accepted. Onel5969 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Firebase

Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Firebase). Can you elaborate on it's non-neutralness? I tried to be only factual and non-opinionated in the writing, but it's my fist attempt at an article and would really appreciate some advice on what else I can do to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termed (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The text is written to advertise, not to explain why it's notable. For example, "lists of services" denotes why you would choose this company, not what this company is about. To be honest, sometimes it's difficult to put your finger on advertising versus simply reporting. As an example, take the verbiage regarding Firepad. You have, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. It is customizable, supporting both rich-text as well as source code editing. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding, among others. Firepad uses the Firebase Realtime Database to power it's collaborative features." That goes beyond mere reporting the facts, and is written as an enticement, a more neutral description might be, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by several editors, including the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding." The deletion of the two sentences removes the marketing language. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it's super helpful. I've updated the article. - Termed — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)

Hi - regarding the proposed page on Bobby Bones (broadcaster). I want to clean up any issues with my citations. After reviewing the guidelines, I see that I can ref to the same article with a different set of tags and will do that. Is there something else I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khachapuri (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry previous message was supposed to be draft. I will add more citations for facts. I wanted to clarify what was needed for references to be properly formatted; e.g. is it because of reference to same material multiple times without proper citation? Or something wrong with the form I've used for citations? User:khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khachapuri: Hi! All of your references are what is know as "naked links", simply using an https link. If you go to WP:CIT, it gives you templates, where you can put the link, author, publisher, date accessed, etc. That's what I was referring to. Hope this answers your question. Onel5969 (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:Thanks! Very helpful and much appreciated. Two questions: (1) I have updated links in the Early Life section using the citation template. Can you check it and let me know if this is how I should proceed through the rest of the article? (2) Can you be more specific about which facts need citations? Khachapuri
@Onel5969:OK, I've added facts (with citations) and updated link information where I thought appropriate (news articles, v. links to imdb) When and how do I learn if the page is going live? thanks!Khachapuri
@Khachapuri: Hi! Much better. All I would ask of you is that you format what are now raw links in the citations with the proper format. 3, 7, 13 are examples of correctly. Once you do that, let me know and I'll accept the article. Interesting subject btw... learned a bit. Also, one other thing, when you put a comment on a user's talk page, it automatically informs them, so there's no need to "ping" me. I ping you, since it's not your talk page, to let you know I've responded. Onel5969 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm there on the citations. Thanks for the information, much appreciated. Please let me know if the article is accepted or if I need take make any further changes. Glad you found the subject interesting. Thanks for the tip on pings. Khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khachapuri: Good job, I'm going to approve it, but right now there's a redirect page which an admin has to delete before I can (which I've requested). As soon as that happens, I'll approve it. There are still a couple of citations which need formatting, e.g. #28. Onel5969 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the redirect. I think I've fixed all of the citations now, so the page should be clean. Very cool of you to be doing this much work on everyone's behalf. Khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is up, much appreciated. Is it appropriate and therefore possible to have the reditrect from the Bobby Bones musician page redirect to the Bobby Bones (broadcaster) page instead of the Bobby Bones Show? Khachapuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.49 (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Versus You

Hi Onel5969,

Now they have nominated my article for speedy deletion again, because of copyright issues but it isn't a direct copy. From somewhere I have to get informations or should I write a Fairytale and I also cannot invent a new language. Ok some parts can be similar but I don't now how to say that differently. Slowly I loose the patience to work on this wiki because everything i do, isn't good enough for anybody. That's the third or fourth time that my article maybe gets deleted. I was so happy that you now created my article finally and now it seems like that all the efforts were a waste of time. Maybe you can do something, I am at my wit's end.

Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Irukandji85: This is one of the reasons that wp requires multiple independent reliable sources, so editors don't have to rely on a single source to get their information together. This is also my bad, since I should have caught it in the approval process. It's obvious that many sentences are simply "cut and paste", which is a huge no-no on wp. No, you can't simply make up information out of thin air, but you have to take the information available to you, and write about it in your own words. For example, "Long-time friends, both musicians had played in a couple of bands together and it didn't take Eric, who had a bag of songs written already, a long time to convince Giordano to join his new band on bass guitar." Might become "Having known each other for several years, Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." But even that second sentence might be too close to the original, even better would be to simply state the fact that can be derived from the original article: "Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." In order for the article not to be deleted, you'll have to go through the entire thing and make sure it's not even close to what is written in the article. Go to [[1]] to see how to fix this issue at this point. You might also try contacting Ronhjones to see if he has any suggestions. Sorry you feel frustrated, but wp is very picky (and rightly so) about copyright violations, either cut and paste from other written sources, or images used without permission.Onel5969 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! Have to see what can be done. --Irukandji85 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FP GA status

Hi One; i'm currently copy-editing The FP and I've skimmed the article's GA Review, in which you said, "Don't think it's ready for Good status yet, don't know how to resolve the image issue. But it's not far away." The article bears a {{Good article}} tag but a second review doesn't appear to have occurred yet. Did the article pass GA? Has the GA tag been added prematurely? I also don't think the prose meets the GA criterion of being "well-written"; I found the plot section quite difficult to interpret and I don't think the lead section summarises the article sufficiently. Please correct me if I'm wrong; if you agree that it shouldn't be in the GA category I'll remove it from there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Legobot added the tag on 15th April in this diff. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Sorry about not responding. I answered on the FP talk page. One of the reasons I wanted someone else to do the c/e on it, was that I've been looking at this article so long, I wanted another editor's opinion. I was glad you chose to do the c/e. As you can see, Corvoe has submitted it for FA status, where the few folks who have responded have done so favorably. I added my thoughts there. Take it easy! Onel5969 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, thanks for replying here; I was just about to tell you the GA status is now confirmed (thanks). I'm currently on the 'Writing' section, which has a better standard of prose than the earlier sections, which might have skewed my opinion slightly. I must admit I can be a picky b***h when it comes to prose, especially where it comes to FA-level editing. Anyway I'm about done for today; I'm getting tired. :-) Thanks again for responding; it's appreciated. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo Classics draft sources

I am a little confused as I added 3 sources to the article. Two books and a review website but you only refer to two sources. Can you please tell me what is incorrect with the two book sources?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyastone Estate (talk • contribs) 11:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyastone Estate: Hi! When I reviewed the article (which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ACameo_Classics&diff=614184606&oldid=612891275), there were 3 references. One is to a website which has a simple blurb about the band. The second states, "Savage, 2001, page 296–297" What is that? A book, a magazine? I see you've now corrected the citation, but that was what I was speaking about. Onel5969 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gabriel P. Weisberg

Thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I have reworked the entry and trust I have corrected it to your satisfaction ... if not, please let me know what else needs to be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_P._Weisberg

Howard L. Rehs (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)

Sorry previous message was supposed to be draft. I will add more citations for facts. I wanted to clarify what was needed for references to be properly formatted; e.g. is it because of reference to same material multiple times without proper citation? Or something wrong with the form I've used for citations? User:khachapuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.49 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CloudSwitch new article comments.

> Comment: The first two citations, and the fourth are about a single > event, the third and seventh are not about the article's subject at > all. The fifth is good for verifying the award, but simply lists the > company. The sixth is a link to another wikipage, and not a valid > source at all. Onel5969

Okay, I need some help here.

> Comment: The first two citations, and the fourth are about a single > event It's true that the the first, second, and fourth citations are about a single event. Each of them documents a different statement in the article's text. What would be the right way to handle this?

> the third and seventh are not about the article's subject at all. The third citation documents what I see as a crucial point, which is that the same team of developers of the original product continue to work on the product after they were acquired by Verizon.

The seventh citation was relevant at the time I accessed it, but the content has since moved. I will correct the link.

> The fifth is good for verifying the award, but simply lists the > company. This refers to the official award web page, which lists CloudSwitch as the 2007 winner. What could be a better source than that?

> The sixth is a link to another wikipage, and not a valid > source at all. Okay. In this case, my bad citation may be evidence that my statement in the wikipage is actually not true. Another wikipage makes an undocumented assertion. This assertion can be found in some marketing materials from Terremark about some sort of recognition from HP Labs. However, searching the HP Labs website for "CloudSwitch" comes up empty. There is probably some kernel of over-hyped truth here, where someone from HP Labs mentioned CloudSwitch in some context. I should remove not only the citation, but the assertion itself, unless the author of the other wikipage can back this up.

I would appreciate any help here.

Israel Gale

Hi. Since this is unsigned (with a wikiuser name), and I can't find the article, it's difficult for me to respond to your questions, except in a general way. The article was most likely declined as not notable, based on my comments. While all the sources you list are good citations to prove the underlying facts of the article, but they do not provide any sense of the notability of the subject.Onel5969 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complications at the FP FAC

Due to an extensive (and in my opinion, excellent) copy-edit by a GOCE member, I want to check in with everyone who voted on the FAC. I'm sure you're doing other things right now, but whenever you find the time, would you be willing to look through the article again and either confirm your vote or withdraw it with comment? If not, that's perfectly okay. Thank you again for all the help! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article

Thank you for reviewing my article Narrows Center for the Arts (draft). I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm going to let the draft sit for a while and help with the cleanup of other articles for now to learn more about acceptable articles before trying again. Am I right that my article will not be deleted but will remain in my subpages as a draft? Thanks again!skatoulaki (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skatoulaki: Hi. I asked the question in the forum and got the following responses which I thought I'd pass along: "The page has already been moved to the draft: space to Draft:Narrows Center for the Arts. It will sit around for about 6 months and then be considered for G13 speedy deletion. I have removed some promotional text, but it is not that much like an essay, so is close to ready for article life." and "In any case, the author has six months and will be warned prior to deletion. The draft can be userfied to keep it in a user sandbox longer than that. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that it can likely be accepted well before that." Thought you might be encouraged by their feedback. Onel5969 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you so much! I definitely am encouraged! I'll keep working on it and will consider resubmitting it in a few weeks. Thanks again! skatoulaki (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Celtro Communication Haimbs


Hello Onel5969 Recently i submitted an article that was rejected by you. Nearly after I entered a question which got no reply from you, please see "19:50:18, 23 June 2014 review of submission by Haimbs", would you be kind to address my query Thanks Haimbs (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Haimbs (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Haimbs: Hi. First, I didn't answer your question because it wasn't addressed to me. In addition, I'm not one of the editors which peruses the help page for the AfD project. In the future, when you wish to ask someone a question, do exactly what you did today, and ask on their talk page. Another way, is to "ping" them, like I did you at the beginning of this response, that way, no matter where you place your query, they are alerted that they've been mentioned. You can click on the edit tab for this message to see the template for pinging... it's quite simple.
Now onto your question. Your article reads like an ad for the company, focusing on selling the product, rather than informing the reader in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. I know that there are other articles out there which read like advertisements, but they should be corrected, not have another one added to them. The guidelines regarding this can be found at WP:NOTADVERTISING. The issue with your article is with the second section. The first section only has a single issue (re: the $40M raise - which again sounds promotional - but if that were the only instance in the article, that wouldn't be an issue). The second section, however, is purely promotional, using words like "unique" and "innovative". I've edited the section to show you an example of the difference. Feel free to edit that work, as it was an example of how not to sound like an advertisement. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:

Hello One15969 thank you for your patience guide. I am new around but i am learning.

As for my draft, I agree with you on both points; that the second section includes some promotion words and that we shouldn't make things worse then what they are. about the raising money ~$40 million, I took it from the attached web sites, but it is not so important. To summarize, if i'll re-submit the current version exactly as is will it be accepted? If so will you help me to add the company logo at the top of the page?

Thanks very much Haimbs (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:08, 3 July 2014 review of submission by ProfessorKouk


I'm a little confused as to why this article was rejected. It was said that YouTube links shouldn't be used, but this is an article about an established YouTube personality. How is someone supposed to reference their work without sourcing a link to YouTube? Also, the blogs that are cited are established entertainment critics who comment on the medium in which the subject operates. G4, The Guardian, Tubefilter, and Slant Magazine are all reputable sites who have reviewed the work of the subject, which is why they were cited.

As for sources "too close" to the subject, how else is someone supposed to write a description of the content without citing the content itself? It is a primary source -- the most valuable in scholarly writing. What better source for how much money the crowdfunding campaign raised for the series than the IndieGoGo site for the series itself? How better to know how many episodes of the series have aired than a link to the series' IMDb page? Why not link to the series own description page when providing a synopsis of what happens in the show?

I realized when reviewing the draft that some of the citations were for the wrong article, they should've been linking to an interview and writeup about the subject and instead were linking to a different page. Please give this article another look over with these details in mind.

ProfessorKouk (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfessorKouk: Hi. Somehow when I declined the article, the overall reason for that declining was not given, simply my comments supporting that reason were given. Your article was declined because it does not meet the notability standards for Wikipedia regarding living persons as per WP:BIO.
In answering your specific questions, here goes. First, any reference source which does not have editorial oversight (youtube, imdb, linkedin, twitter, facebook, etc.), is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference source, as per WP:RS. Youtube, especially must be used very carefully, as per WP:YOUTUBE, due to possible copyright violations. I understand your frustration when your subject is connected to one of those mediums, but that doesn't change the underlying reasons for not allowing them. Sources also must be independent of the subject. Interviews can be used to verify some of the facts in the article, but should be used very infrequently, as they are both non-independent, and not reliable. For example, there was an article I edited about a very well known musical personality. There was conflict about her date of birth. The citation used was an interview she had given to a newspaper. But she lied about her age. But it's not even about lying. When people are being interviewed, sometimes they simply misspeak, or misremember, or simply get a fact wrong. Primary sources should be used sparingly as per WP:PRIMARY.
Second, there's a difference between a valid citation (like your example of the indiegogo citation to support the funds raised), and a citation which proves notability, like a newspaper article from about the subject. A citation which makes a brief reference to the subject, can be used to verify the fact stated, but does not indicate notability (like the G4 citation). Primary sources, for example, should only be used to cite facts, and never go to proving notability. The standard for when blogs can be used may be found HERE. The blogs used are not newsblogs, they are self-published sources, and therefore per the guideline, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
Third, some of the citations don't support the underlying facts, e.g. the link to Keith Uhlich nowhere mentions the quote cited in your article (while it does mention the phrase, nowhere does it say that he is calling the article's subject that). And this is followed in the same sentence by an opinion offered as fact, regarding comparing him to Yankovic.
I did look over the article again, and the same issues hold, although I will say the tubefilter article is another good citation. But the only two good citations you have are from very fringe sources. Onel5969 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Haripad

Thanks for leaving comment on revert. Can you please help me to understand which sites will come under 'reliable' category? The site which I referred is reputed one which is coming under belur math site which is considered most reliable. --Kuzhali.india (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuzhali.india: Hi. The site you used as a reference is really what we would term, a blog. It's run by two people, who self-publish, with no editorial oversight, see WP:QUESTIONABLE. For a source to be used, it should be both independent and reliable. WP:RS (of which the other link I gave you is a part of) gives a good overview on how to judge whether or not a source is reliable. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information--Kuzhali.india (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you please add the GOCE tag to the Jade Ewen talk page. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: - Done. Onel5969 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khanate of Kokand

I see you deleted it...

But this is not incorrect as you claimed...

There is one male member of the former Khante of Kokand

Khan Timur Can born 1978.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Khan-of-Kokand/1528862514001851

Thank you for your comments re: Serenade (Book)

Hi there I would like to thank you for your comments and compliments on the work for the article in creation "Serenade (Book)". I will work on the notability issues you have pointed out and revise, resubmit and see if I can do better. Thanks again! Mari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maribianca101 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maribianca101: No problem. Keep up the good work, good luck with the article. Onel5969 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abraham Neyman

Hello,

You have recently declined the submission of the article about Abraham Neyman. Neyman answers many of the criteria in the guidelines for academics, for example: 1) he has made significant advances to his field, and in recogntion for them the "International Journal of Game Theory" decided to dedicate a special issue in his honor (reference given in the draft). A summary of his academic achivements also appears in the article. 3) Neyman has been elected to the Econometric Society which is a highly selective and prestigious scholaraly society. 6) He is a full proffesor in the departement of mathematics in the Hebrew Univeristy of Jerusalem, Israel (HUJI). Note that HUJI appears in the list of 100 best universities in the world, and the departement of mathematics there is considered one of the leading centers of game theory worldwide, especially since one of its memebers, Robert Aumann won the Nobel prize in economics for his work on game theory.

This article was written by friends of mine who are mathematicians, experts in game theory, but not very familiar with Wikipedia. Considering that I think they did a good job writting the article which they supported by many references. These are exactly the kind of people we would like to attract to wikipedia.

I would therefore like to urge you to reconsinder acceptance of this article. Yours gratefully, טוקיוני (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@טוקיוני: Hi. He may very well be notable, but as I said in my comments, the citations included in the article do not demonstrate that notability. There's not a single citation from an independent, reliable source, and especially in a bio article, the burden is high. You can look at WP:RS to get an idea of what WP considers to reliable and independent. Being a full professor isn't notable, he would have had to be the dean. Using your logic regarding his faculty position would mean that every professor at Yale, Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, etc. would qualify as notable. A list of his academic achievements does not make him notable, as it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The Econometric Society does not qualify; there are quite a few societies which are specific to certain fields, that does not make of the same stature of the handful which are recognized as being the top tier (like the Royal Society). Onel5969 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the contributors to the article. It clearly states that Abraham Neyman is a fellow of the Econometric Society since 1989 (Which is one of the highest honors an economist can get in his/her lifetime; even in places like Harvard, only a handful of tenured full professors obtain this), President of the Israeli Chapter of the Game Theory Society, and that the International Journal of Game Theory - a well known peer reviewed journal which is central in that field - had announced a special issue in his Honor "in recognition of his important contributions to game theory". I think this is more than enough, as only a handful of academics get these honors. If you need more, I can add that he gave the von-Neumann lecture in the Game Theory Society conference (held only once in 4 years!) at Chicago in 2008: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/meds/games2008/schedule.html And actually gave it twice (as in 2012, J.F Mertens, who was supposed to give it, passed away, and Neyman was immediately elected to take his place). He was also, as his CV suggest (I know you don't care, but still, the CV of such an eminent scientist should count for something...), the area editor of game theory in Mathematics of Operations Research (perhaps the most important platform for mathematical game theory, and especially for stochastic games) and also an associate editor in Games and Economic Behavior (which is regarded as a top journal in Economic Theory, I can supply evidence if it is needed). If these journal affiliations need any further evidence (which does not appear online, unfortunately), I will be more than happy to contact the relevant editors in those journals (all of which were either students of Neyman, or were strongly influenced by him...) and they will supply it. It will be quite amazing if we should go to such length after mentioning that he is a fellow of the Econometric Society and president of the Israeli Chapter of the Game Theory society (especially given the influence of Israeli game theorists on the field. Here are a few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schmeidler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergiu_Hart), but I am quite willing to supply this further evidence if it is still required. OEdhan (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


As to the Econometric Society, you can have a look at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2171743

" The Econometric Society is the most prestigious learned society in the field of economics, with a world-wide membership". OEdhan (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Triangle Productions

Just a quick heads up – the article above which you rejected at Articles for Creation not only still has its own page, but has been added to in the last 24 hours, including alterations by user Georgetizzard, which just happens to be the name of one of the producers at the very same company. Looks like blatant self-promotion and a clear violation of WP:COI to me – you might want to keep an eye on it and step in if things don't improve. Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Thanks. Will do. Onel5969 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about rejection

I'm confused about why my piece about Say When is rejected. They were one of my favorite bands in the late 2000s and I saw them play with so many other of my favorite bands at some really huge festivals and tours. Not to mention I must of seen them on TV 3 or 4 times and they were spun on the radio station in my city. I thought I had all the correct documentation and the only thing I can think of is the fact that they remained unsigned during their entire career even though that's not technically true since they had their own label Say When Music…. I think (not positive about the name of their own label).

Please advise as to what else I should add.

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimanchester (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Elimanchester:. Hi! First, please always sign your messages, so folks can figure out who to respond to.
Second, here's an in-depth review of the issues of your proposed article. Citations 1, 3, 5, are from obscure sources, so they don't really demonstrate notability. If they were from Rolling Stone, Village Voice, etc., it would be a different story. Citations 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 are simple mentions of the subject, so they work to cite the underlying fact they are used for, but not for notability. Citations 10 and 11 have nothing to do with the notability of the subject. WP:NMUSIC shows the 12 criteria for musical groups. WP:RS explains the rationale behind citations being independent and reliable. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:. Sorry about that. So should I try and find full interviews with the band online? Because 6 looks like it was an interview but only part of it is now available online… its from Boston Harold which is a pretty big company (News in Massachusetts). Although its from 6 years ago so many they took it down. I'm just confused because the other band I really liked in Boston was called Averi (really cool bluesy pop) and they did less touring and didn't play nearly as many festivals and big tours as this band. I'll try to find some full interviews I just figured the fact that they played on big tours/festivals like Bamboozle and Warped Tour and it was mentioned and advertised by big magazines in that scene like AbsolutePunk and Alternative News (AP) Magazine was enough….

Thanks for all the advice and help and I'll do some more research to see if I can dig up some more press on them.

~ EliManchester

@Elimanchester: Hi. Another thing, when you comment on someone's talk page, they are automatically notified, so there is no reason to "ping" them. I ping you on my talk page to let you know I've answered, but if I was commenting on your talk page, I wouldn't.
Interviews are fine, but are not the best sources, since they can be unreliable. A perfect case in point regarding that is there is a famous musician who always says her birth date is about 8 years younger than her real one. You can find literally dozens of interviews which would back up the younger date, but they are incorrect. The link I gave you above, WP:RS really explains what Wikipedia is looking for. Articles about the group (not interviews), in major publications are always the best sources. Advertisements, press releases, etc. are not reliable sources. Anyway... good luck in your editing. Onel5969 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry to bother with questions again. So I found a few reliable sources for Say When that I will be adding. In the meantime I went to add some things to another Boston band I used to obsess over and noticed their wiki page doesn't have any references so I'm confused why their page was approved? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averi If I add something to their page do I still need to add a reference or not even bother since they don't seem to have any other references? Thanks for your help. I'm trying to get a better grasp of using wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimanchester (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Geist (Company)

I converted the bare html references in the Draft:Geist (Company) article, did some copy editing, and added an infobox. I was not able to verify either of the awards mentioned near the bottom of the article, and left tags for citations there. Since those awards are evidence of notability, Njmott will need to supply those references. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: Nicely done. I'm going to delete that section and approve the article, since Njmott hasn't responded. They can always add it back in later, with citations. Onel5969 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fresno, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muenster. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khanate of Kokand

Why you always deleted it?

I give you the Facebook Page of the last male member of the kokand royal family.

But you always deleted it.

Articles for creation don't need inline citations

Hi One. I am happy to see you reviewing articles. I noticed that you declined this article, Draft:John Riddy, on July 16 with this comment: "Please see Fiddle Faddle's comment in particular below. Each fact needs to be cited. Also, the citations need to be formatted, examples can be found at WP:CIT."

Inline references are required only for direct quotes and, for living people, in a only few other special cases. Everything does not need a reference. And only the notability references need to be independent of the person. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says:

1. Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.

Except for direct quotes, in most cases new editors don't need to learn anything about putting in inline citations before their article is accepted. Of course those citations will be needed to improve the quality of the article. I've already mentioned this to TimTrent (Fiddle Faddle). Happy reviewing. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|StarryGrandma}} Thanks for that heads-up, did not realize it, missed it when I read the guidelines. In that case, I guess I'll remove myself from the AfC project then, as I think that is a completely silly guideline, and really undermines any attempts to make Wikipedia into a valid source tool. Thanks again for the heads up. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a source tool, it's an encyclopedia! Try WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Happy editing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stop reviewing. Citations are a quality issue, not an accepting an article issue. I learned the difference when trying to write a list of minimum things for acceptance, and was promptly told that inline citations wasn't one of them. I haven't had much luck teaching users how to do tricky things like refs. But many of the articles they start are really useful. So I do a lot of article fixing myself. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Financial

Hi,

There are a couple of tags on the Hana Financial article. Are they still supposed to be there? Is it ok if I remove them?Cecibell (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cecibell: You know, I don't know. An administrator is supposed to take care of that, but I'll simply remove them. Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blakumen

Thank you for your bold copyedit, I highly appreciate it. In the meantime, I have made 3 small changes. I hope they are acceptable for you. I will soon make a GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: No problem, thanks for the kind words. I am going to change one of your edits. The word biography is more specific, and should be used to introduce that concept, particularly since the link provided (to hagiography), defines it as a biography. Your second edit to "work" is fine, as are your other edits. Onel5969 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:52, 23 July 2014 review of submission by Harry Manhattan

Hi. I've been trying to submit an article for a few weeks now, but some of my sources keep getting rejected. Could you please tell me which ones aren't being accepted, so I can work on them?

Harry Manhattan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Harry Manhattan[reply]


Harry Manhattan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry Manhattan: Hi. This is part of the comment I left the last time I reviewed it: "#1 is not independent. 2, 3, and 5 are either lists or brief mentions of the artist. 6 is a wikilink, which isn't a valid reference. 4 & 7 are good sources, but they are from obscure sources, so by themselves do not denote notability." You've added two sources since then, the baller interview is a good one, but again from an obscure source, while the other again doesn't really promote notability, just backs up his relation to notable performers. I think this article is on the cusp of being approved, but I've taken myself off the list of editors who do that, so you might want to simply resubmit. Isn't there an article about this guy in Rolling Stone, or some other higher profile music mag? That would help enormously. Good luck, hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Senta Yamada Article Review

Hi Onel,

In your review you state the following:

"Many of the references (e.g. 1, 2, 8, 9) only make a brief mention of the article's subject. Others are simply links to a site selling a book, without any reference at all (e.g. 5, 7). Onel5969 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)"

I would like to note the following:

- Reference 1. is an Aikido Journal Encyclopedia Entry description for Senta Yamada. Therefore it is based mainly on Senta Yamada ( the article subject) and it describes in a very succinct manner the notability of Senta Yamada. Just having an Encyclopedia entry in the Aikido Journal is enough proof of a persons notability, Aikido Journal is the most widely used external resource as reference in Aikido Wikipedia articles.

- Reference 2. I agree with you it briefly mentions Senta Yamada ( two counts ) but it is an external resource describing how Senta Yamada came to the UK to teach Judo and Aikido.

- Reference 8. The article is the obituary of the passing of Senta Yamada. It describes on what conditions he died and also some of his life achievements. For this reason it is referenced at the end of my draft article. How does this one briefly mention the subject ? It is the obituary of the subject.

- Reference 9. Is another post in the Aiki Web (an independent and notable web group on Aikido matters ) informing on the death of Senta Yamada. For this reason it is used at the end of the Draft Article.

- Reference 5 and 7 link to the amazon site where they sell the books described in the article: "During his time in England Senta Yamada authored The Ancient Secrets of Aikido (published in 1961)[5] which is considered the first aikido book published in the UK [6]. Senta Yamada later also co-wrote The principles and practice of Aikido with Alex Macintosh (published in 1966) [7]." If you enter the pages referenced you can see a copy of the book and it is authored by Senta Yamada and its sell value.

I think that the notability of the subject is proved taken into account: 1. He is a high ranking person in the Aikido and Judo 2. Was a direct disciple of Morihei Ueshiba and Jigoro Kano founders of Judo and Aikido 3. Was one of the first pioneers of Tomiki Aikido in the United Kingdom as said by Dr Lee Ah Loi ( who has a Wikipedia article entry also) 4. Has authored several books some of which considered the first printable Aikido Material in the United Kingdom.

Let me know what you think of my comments. I understand that some articles might seem brief but they are used in the correct place ...

Thanks for your time.

2001:720:101C:504:CC94:5CA7:6364:9D37 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign a comment

This one. Thought you might want to go back and fix it. Or maybe not, just thought I should bring it to your attention. Sock (previously Corvoe) (be heard) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with what you mean by "reliable sources"?

Hi, I am really trying to understand that you are looking for for sources and citation. My submission is on a topic happened in the early '80's and there are just not that many references to it in public sources. That is what happens when what we were doing with videotex preceded the web by a decade.

Please help me with what you are looking for as "reliable sources" in the case of Boston CitiNet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjkboston/sandbox. I would like to get this released from the drafts bin.

Thanks, Myron Mjkboston (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=618895252"